{"title":"American Sophistication","authors":"Ross Posnock","doi":"10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.1252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Like cosmopolitan, sophistication is a fighting word in American culture, a phrase that discomfits, raises eyebrows. It is not who we are, as President Obama used to say, for it smacks of elitism. Whereas the first word has had a stormy modern history—Stalin, for instance, used cosmopolitan as a code word for Jew—sophistication has always kept bad company, starting with its etymology. Its first six letters saddle it with sophistry, both tarred with the same brush of suspicion. Sophistry was a form of rhetoric that attracted the enmity of Socrates and Plato, with repercussions deep into the 17th century. In 1689, when John Locke said rhetoric trafficked in error and deceit, he was echoing the Greeks who tended to dismiss the art of persuasion and eloquence in general as sophistry, morally debased discourse. In the West, rhetoric, sophistry, and sophistication are arraigned as a shared locus of antinature: empty style, deceptive artifice, effeminate preening. They all testify to the deforming demands of social life, the worldliness disdained by Christian moralists, starting with Augustine, as concupiscence. This is the fall into sin from the prelapsarian transparency of Adam and Eve’s spiritual union of pure intellection with God, the perfection of reason that permits transcendence of the bodily senses. The corporeal senses and imagination dominate when man gives himself over to the world’s noise and confusion and is distracted from self-communion in company with God.\n Given that sophistication’s keynote is effortless ease, from the point of view of Augustinian Christianity such behavior in a basic sense violates Christian humility after the fall: with man’s loss of repose in God comes permanent uneasiness, inquiétude as Blaise Pascal and Michel de Montaigne put it, a chronic dissatisfaction and ennui that seeks relief in trivial divertissement (distraction), convictions that Montesquieu, Locke, and Tocqueville drew on for their root assumptions about how secular political institutions shape their citizens’ psyches. American Puritanism is in part an “Augustinian strain of piety,” as Perry Miller showed in his classic study, The New England Mind, hence suspicious of any distraction from worship of God. Puritans banned theaters two years after the nation was founded. Keeping vigilant watch over stirrings of New World worldliness, they permanently placed sophistication in the shadow of a double burden: Christian interdiction on top of the pre-Christian opprobrium heaped on sophistic rhetoric. Only by the mid-19th century does sophistication finally shed, though never definitively, sophistry’s fraudulence and deception and acquire positive qualities—worldly wisdom, refinement, subtlety, expertise. The year 1850 is the earliest positive use the Oxford English Dictionary lists, instanced by a sentence from Leigh Hunt’s Autobiography: “A people who . . . preserve in the very midst of their sophistication a frankness distinct from it.”","PeriodicalId":207246,"journal":{"name":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature","volume":"6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Literature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190201098.013.1252","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Like cosmopolitan, sophistication is a fighting word in American culture, a phrase that discomfits, raises eyebrows. It is not who we are, as President Obama used to say, for it smacks of elitism. Whereas the first word has had a stormy modern history—Stalin, for instance, used cosmopolitan as a code word for Jew—sophistication has always kept bad company, starting with its etymology. Its first six letters saddle it with sophistry, both tarred with the same brush of suspicion. Sophistry was a form of rhetoric that attracted the enmity of Socrates and Plato, with repercussions deep into the 17th century. In 1689, when John Locke said rhetoric trafficked in error and deceit, he was echoing the Greeks who tended to dismiss the art of persuasion and eloquence in general as sophistry, morally debased discourse. In the West, rhetoric, sophistry, and sophistication are arraigned as a shared locus of antinature: empty style, deceptive artifice, effeminate preening. They all testify to the deforming demands of social life, the worldliness disdained by Christian moralists, starting with Augustine, as concupiscence. This is the fall into sin from the prelapsarian transparency of Adam and Eve’s spiritual union of pure intellection with God, the perfection of reason that permits transcendence of the bodily senses. The corporeal senses and imagination dominate when man gives himself over to the world’s noise and confusion and is distracted from self-communion in company with God.
Given that sophistication’s keynote is effortless ease, from the point of view of Augustinian Christianity such behavior in a basic sense violates Christian humility after the fall: with man’s loss of repose in God comes permanent uneasiness, inquiétude as Blaise Pascal and Michel de Montaigne put it, a chronic dissatisfaction and ennui that seeks relief in trivial divertissement (distraction), convictions that Montesquieu, Locke, and Tocqueville drew on for their root assumptions about how secular political institutions shape their citizens’ psyches. American Puritanism is in part an “Augustinian strain of piety,” as Perry Miller showed in his classic study, The New England Mind, hence suspicious of any distraction from worship of God. Puritans banned theaters two years after the nation was founded. Keeping vigilant watch over stirrings of New World worldliness, they permanently placed sophistication in the shadow of a double burden: Christian interdiction on top of the pre-Christian opprobrium heaped on sophistic rhetoric. Only by the mid-19th century does sophistication finally shed, though never definitively, sophistry’s fraudulence and deception and acquire positive qualities—worldly wisdom, refinement, subtlety, expertise. The year 1850 is the earliest positive use the Oxford English Dictionary lists, instanced by a sentence from Leigh Hunt’s Autobiography: “A people who . . . preserve in the very midst of their sophistication a frankness distinct from it.”
和世界主义者一样,世故在美国文化中是一个好斗的词,一个令人不安、令人侧目的词。正如奥巴马总统过去常说的那样,这不是我们,因为它带有精英主义的味道。尽管“世故”这个词在现代史上经历了一场风暴——例如,斯大林曾用“世界主义者”作为犹太人的暗号——但“世故”这个词的词源却一直与坏伙伴为伴。它的前六个字母都带有诡辩的色彩,两者都带有同样的嫌疑。诡辩是一种修辞形式,引起了苏格拉底和柏拉图的敌意,其影响一直持续到17世纪。1689年,当约翰·洛克说修辞是错误和欺骗的交易时,他是在附和希腊人的观点,希腊人倾向于将说服和雄辩的艺术视为诡辩,是道德败坏的话语。在西方,花言巧语、诡辩和世故被指责为共同的古董:空洞的风格、欺骗的技巧、娘娘腔的打扮。它们都证明了社会生活的扭曲需求,即从奥古斯丁开始的基督教道德家所鄙视的世俗,即贪欲。这是从堕落前亚当和夏娃与上帝的纯粹理智的精神结合的透明堕落到罪恶的,理性的完美,允许超越身体的感官。当人把自己交给世界的喧嚣和混乱,从与上帝的自我交流中分心时,肉体的感觉和想象就占据了主导地位。鉴于世故的基调是毫不费力的轻松,从奥古斯丁基督教的观点来看,这种行为在基本意义上违背了堕落后基督教的谦卑:随着人类对上帝失去安宁,随之而来的是永久的不安,正如帕斯卡尔(Blaise Pascal)和蒙田(Michel de Montaigne)所说,这是一种长期的不满和厌倦,人们在琐碎的消遣中寻求解脱,孟德斯鸠、洛克(Locke)和托克维尔(Tocqueville)的信念是他们关于世俗政治制度如何塑造公民心理的根本假设。美国清教在某种程度上是一种“奥古斯丁式的虔诚”,正如佩里·米勒在他的经典研究《新英格兰人的思想》中所显示的那样,因此对任何分散对上帝崇拜的行为都持怀疑态度。美国建国两年后,清教徒禁止了剧院。他们对新世界世俗化的躁动保持警惕,永远把世俗化置于双重负担的阴影之下:基督教的封锁,加上前基督教的谴责和诡辩的修辞。直到19世纪中期,世故才最终摆脱了诡辩的欺诈和欺骗,获得了积极的品质——世俗的智慧、精致、微妙和专业知识。1850年是牛津英语词典列出的最早的肯定用法,例如利·亨特的自传中的一句话:“一个人……在他们的世故之中保持一种不同于世故的坦率。”